Literature report on

food packaging materials and

their potential impact on human health

by

Dieter Schrenk

MD, PhD

Professor of Food Chemistry and Toxicology

Technische Universität Kaiserslautern, Germany

April 2014
1. Introduction

The issue of assessment of health risks of food packaging materials (FPMs)

represents an ongoing challenge. This is due to the fact that FPMs have the
potential for release and subsequent transfer of components into the food.
This transfer then can lead to an exposure of the consumer to those
components and/or their reaction products. The following article is aimed at
presenting and discussing the major facts and perspectives related to this
issue also comparing the properties of a broad spectrum of FPM with respect
to food safety.

2. FPMs and their constituents

Food is packed into a large variety of containers made from a number of
different materials and combinations thereof. These have to fulfill several
criteria mainly in order to preserve the food, extend its shelve-life and maintain
its quality with respect to freshness, taste, flavor, color etc. A major role of
FPMs is the avoidance of risks related to microbial or chemical degradation of
the food, i.e. unwanted events, which may imply serious health risks.
In addition, packaging of food provides a universal frame for the display of
written information, pictures and images about the contents of the package,
which have both the function to attract and inform the consumer.
The functions, which a FPM has to fulfill are, therefore, manifold. A major
requirement is a reliable barrier function against microorganisms, spores and
chemicals. The latter include both compounds which can enter the food and
cause a deterioration of quality such as oxygen or strange odor or compounds
which should not leave the food such as water, valuable flavor constituents
etc.
Furthermore, the FPM should be solid, stable, convenient and consumer-
friendly in various aspects, which cannot be presented here in detail.
Plastic polymers of various compositions can fulfill many of these functions in
a more or less acceptable way. A major drawback of plastic FPMs, however, is
that they require additives to guarantee certain properties required for their

2
function. These include plastifiers to provide sufficient plasticity, antioxidants to
protect from degradation by atmospheric oxygen, light protectants to decrease
UV-light dependent degradation, colors to generate the intended appearance
of the package, printing inks to apply written and graphic information,
ornaments etc. Furthermore, the nature of the polymerization process makes it
unavoidable that the plastic FPMs contain residues of mono- and oligomers of
the starting material(s) as well as additives required for the polymerization and
maturation process of the polymer such as catalysts, cross-linkers,
polymerization modifiers, stopping components etc.
A further alternative for FPMs is paper and cardboard. These materials mainly
originate from wood, which is treated in various ways. Although paper and
cardboard including recycling products are widely considered to represent
‘natural’ FPMs, the manufacturing process of these materials may require the
use of a broad spectrum of chemicals. These include preservatives protecting
the FPM from degradation by microorganisms, plastic polymer coatings to
improve the normally weak barrier function of paper, printing inks and colors,
UV protectants, and chemicals used in the pulp and paper production.
Since non-coated paper and cardboard is a relatively porous material,
aqueous or oily liquids (from the food) may have access to the body of the
material eventually extracting those chemicals from the FPM. The use of
recycled paper and cardboard for the production of FPMs is another
problematic issue because of chemicals already present in the recycled
materials.
The third large group of FPMs is metals. There, iron-based can bodies are in
use but usually have to be coated inside with polymers to avoid direct contact
with the food. Corrosion by high-salt or acidic food items is a major issue,
which precludes direct contact between food and metals to be feasible. A
major exception is stainless steel, which, however, cannot be used for most
FPM purposes because of its extraordinary high price. Aluminum cans have
to be covered with polymers as well since aluminum also is a quite corrosion-
prone metal being rather unstable when coming into contact with many foods.
The fourth and best solution in terms of food safety is glass. Glass is also

3
made from natural materials but contrary to all other FPMs it does not require
any plastic layer to protect the food. This fact makes sure that no organic
matter is present in glass and thus cannot migrate into the food. Also the
components of glass, i.e. sodium silicates are completely health-friendly and
inert, i.e., they are toxicologically irrelevant.

3. Substances migrating from FPM into food

Various methods were established in order to determine migration into foods.
The levels of exposure usually are minor, however, a widespread and, in many
instances, frequent or long-term exposure of consumers warrants a particular
interest of toxicologist in these compounds.

Substances migrating from FPMs can be subdivided into no-intentionally

added substances (NIAS) and intentionally added substances (IAS) or
migrants originating thereof.

IAS often are directly derived from FPMs, i.e., they are identical to the FPM
(metals etc.) or represent minor constituents used or are derived from the
production process of the FPM such as plastic monomers, plastifiers, dyes,
antioxidants etc. NIAS in most cases are compounds, which have not been
added intentionally to the FPM during the manufacturing process of the FPM
or have been added to a portion of the FPM not thought to come into contact
with the food. Migration of components into foods has been identified as a
major route of human exposure to FPMs and/or their components (Munro et
al., 2002).

Table 1 provides a non-comprehensive list of IAS (intentionally added

substances) and NIAS (non-intentionally added substances) migrating from
FPMs.

4
Table 1. Overview over substances migrating from FPM

Type class of substance substance FPM/use

IAS plastic monomers vinyl chloride PVCs
acrylamide polyacrylamides
caprolactam, polyamide
6-aminohexanoic acid polyamides
p-hydroxybenzoic acid polyesters
2-hydroxy-6-naphthoic acid polyesters
metals aluminum aluminum foil
plastifiers, monomers etc. plastic polymers,
coated aluminium cans,
coated paper/cardboard
dyes paper/ cardboard
antioxidants plastic polymers
plastifiers bisphenol A, phthalates plastic polymers
photo-initiators 2-isopropylthioxanthone paper/ cardboard
water/fat repellents perfluorinated acids etc. paper/ cardboard
NIAS mineral oils MOSH/MOAH recycled
paper/cardboard

3.1. Plastic polymers

During the manufacturing process of plastic polymers, polymerization is
incomplete. Therefore, mono- and oligomers frequently are present in the FPM
and can migrate into the food, e.g., EU legislation lists hundreds of chemicals’
possible migration from plastic polymers into food (Bradley et al., 2009). A
prominent example is acrylamide, a rodent carcinogen and neurotoxic agent in
many species including humans. Acrylamide is required for the production of
polyacrylamide polymers, which may also be used in FPMs (Krska et al.,
2012). Other examples of monomers migrating into food are styrene,
vinylchloride etc.. Although the levels migrating into food items under standard
conditions are regulated and controlled, a certain degree of migration is
virtually unavoidable.
A relatively large number of chemicals are intentionally added to the plastic
polymers and may eventually leach into the food (Muncke, 2011). An important
group of materials, which are intentionally added during the manufacturing of
plastic polymers are plastifiers. Most notably, bisphenol A, a widely used
plastifier, has been accused to act as a so-called ‘endocrine disruptor’, i.e., a
synthetic chemical which can affect functions of the endocrine system pivotal

5
for development, reproduction and many other vital functions of the organism
(Hunt et al., 2003). The actual risk arising from bisphenol A exposure migrating
from FPMs into food is widely considered among most toxicologists (EFSA,
2010; Hengstler et al., 2011) and regulatory bodies to be of minor relevance.
However, further research is required to elucidate this issue. Another family of
widely used plastifiers is the group of phthalates (Guart et al., 2014). They
were also accused to affect endocrine functions and to act as liver tumor
promoters, at least in rodents. The current risk assessments for phthalates
also consider the actual risk for human health as marginal, however, express
the need for further research in this field.
In addition to monomers and plastifiers, plastic polymers usually may contain
other types of chemicals namely residues of polymerization aids, catalysts,
UV-protectants, antioxidants etc. which may also migrate into foods. Less is
known about the actual levels and toxicological relevance of those
compounds, although the actual risk associated with such migration is widely
considered as acceptable.

3.2. Paper and cardboard

Paper and cardboard used as FPMs usually are coated with plastic polymers
since they have weak barrier functions in order to avoid the transfer of
chemical compounds between the food and the outside world. Therefore,
many paper/cardboard-containing FPMs bear the same problems as the
plastic polymers (Gärtner et al., 2009). Similar conclusions can be drawn for
adhesives used for gluing of paper/cardboard. The latter also contain plastic
polymer-like materials in addition to solvents, many of them being of organic
nature. Furthermore, polyfluorinated acids and related compounds are used
for coating of paper to provide resistance to oil and moisture (Zafeiraki et al.,
2014).
Recently, the increasing use of recycled paper/cardboard as the only or partial
constituent of FPMs has led to special concerns. This is due to the
contamination of recycled paper with a variety of chemicals, mostly derived
from printing inks. Likewise, mineral oils are frequently present in recycled

6
paper/cardboard and, due to their lipophilicity and persistence, are easily
found in the foods items (Lorenzini et al., 2013). Even in the absence of a
direct contact between the food and the FPM, transfer from the recycled
cardboard via the gas phase into the food may occur, making the use as a
FPM more problematic. Printing ink on paper/cardboard can also be as source
of food contamination when non-recycled material is used for manufacturing of
FPM. This is due to a variety of constituents such as the photo-initiator ITX (2-
isopropylthioxanthone; Rothenbacher et al., 2007).

3.3. Metals
The use of a variety of relatively toxic metals such as lead or zinc as/in FPMs
has been banned for food containers. Currently, iron/steel-based cans are
mostly coated with plastic polymers to avoid corrosion of the metal by food
constituents or transfer of metal ions into the food. The latter may affect flavor,
color and other quality features of the food in a dramatic way and thus have to
be avoided. Aluminum is widely used for the manufacturing of cans for
beverages. The relatively reactive nature of aluminum makes it necessary to
coat the metal with plastic polymer films, also to avoid corrosion/reaction with
the food. Thus the problems eventually occurring from migration of
constituents of plastic polymers into food also fully apply to steel and
aluminum cans (Cooper et al., 2011).

3.4. Glass
Glass is a FPM entirely made from natural raw materials, which are
toxicologically inert. The major constituents, i.e. sodium/potassium silicates are
non-toxic and chemically highly inert. The transfer of silicates and cations into
food is marginal and even if it occurs, is toxicologically irrelevant, since the
cations usually present are non-toxic. Virtually no traces of problematic
migrants originating from the glass are found in glass-bottled food products
(Hayashi et al., 2011).

Cases of concern related to migration of chemicals such as 2-ethylhexanoic

7
acid into food have been associated to glass-made FPMs only, if these were
combined with other materials, i.e. in metal lids. The problems of
polymers/adhesives used in lids have been solved, however, by the use of
alternative processes in their production (Elss et al., 2004).

4. Summary and conclusions

In summary food packing has to fulfill a broad spectrum of requirements all

being related to the preservation of food quality and the proper presentation
and handling of the food item.
With respect to preservation of food quality an effective barrier function is
mandatory preventing the transfer from/into the food related to its
surrounding/environment. For this purpose, a number of FPMs are suitable
including glass, metals, and plastic polymers while paper/cardboard, when
used as the only component, cannot fulfill this task in a sufficient way. Among
the materials used as barrier, glass is the most effective one representing a
virtually complete barrier around the food, which prevents any loss of quality
due to penetration or leakage of compounds.
Another important aspect in evaluating the role of a FPMs for food safety is the
issue of transfer of FPM-borne compounds into the food. Here, plastic
polymers, metals and paper/cardboard have been shown in the past to be an
important source for unwanted chemicals in food. These occur via migration of
mostly intentionally added constituents or the FPM material itself (metals) into
the food thus eventually affecting its quality. Although the risk of exposure
towards food contaminated with such compounds is considered as acceptable,
more research is needed to clarify this issue scientifically.
Irrespective of these problems, it is evident that glass due to its inert nature
and completely non-toxic constituents represents a 100% safe, ideal FPM with
respect to consumer’s health and food safety.

8
5. References

Bradley EL, Castle L, Jickells SM, Mountfort KA, Read WA (2009) Use of overall
migration methodology to test for food-contact substances with specific
migration limits. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk
Assess 26, 574-582.

Cooper JE, Kendig EL, Belcher SM (2011) Assessment of bisphenol A released from
reusable plastic, aluminium and stainless steel water bottles. Chemosphere
85, 943-947.

EFSA (2010) Scientific Opinion on Bisphenol A: evaluation of a study investigating its

neurodevelopmental toxicity, review of recent scientific literature on its toxicity
and advice on the Danish risk assessment of Bisphenol A. EFSA Journal 8,
1829 [116 pp.].

Elss S, Grünewald L, Richling E, Schreier P (2004) Occurrence of 2-ethylhexanoic

acid in foods packed in glass jars. Food Addit Contam 21, 811-814.

Hengstler JG, Foth H, Gebel T, Kramer PJ, Lilienblum W, Schweinfurth H, Völkel W,

Wollin KM, Gundert-Remy U (2011) Critical evaluation of key evidence on the
human health hazards of exposure to bisphenol A. Crit Rev Toxicol 41, 263-
291.

Gärtner S, Balski M, Koch M, Nehls I (2009) Analysis and migration of phthalates in

infant food packed in recycled paperboard. J Agric Food Chem 57, 10675-
10681.

Guart A, Bono-Blay F, Borrell A, Lacorte S (2014) Effect of bottling and storage on

the migration of plastic constituents in Spanish bottled waters. Food Chem
156, 73-80.

Hayashi E, Imai T, Niimi H (2011) Safety verification for reuse of PET and glass
bottles. Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi 52, 112-116.

Hunt PA, Koehler KE, Susiarjo M, Hodges CA, Ilagan A, Voigt RC, Thomas S,
Thomas BF, Hassold TJ (2003) Bisphenol a exposure causes meiotic
aneuploidy in the female mouse. Curr Biol 13, 546-553.

Krska R, Becalski A, Braekevelt E, Koerner T, Cao XL, Dabeka R, Godefroy S, Lau

B, Moisey J, Rawn DF, Scott PM, Wang Z, Forsyth D (2012) Challenges and
trends in the determination of selected chemical contaminants and allergens in
food. Anal Bioanal Chem 402, 139-162.

Lorenzini R, Biedermann M, Grob K, Garbini D, Barbanera M, Braschi I (2013)

Migration kinetics of mineral oil hydrocarbons from recycled paperboard to dry
food: monitoring of two real cases. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal
Control Expo Risk Assess 30, 760-770.

9
Muncke J (2011) Endocrine disrupting chemicals and other substances of concern in
food contact materials: an updated review of exposure, effect and risk
assessment. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 127, 118-127.

Munro C, Hlywka JJ, Kennepohl EM (2002) Risk assessment of packaging materials.

Food Addit Contam 19 Suppl, 3-12.

Rothenbacher T, Baumann M, Fügel D (2007) 2-Isopropylthioxanthone (2-ITX) in

food and food packaging materials on the German market. Food Addit Contam
24, 438-44.

Schönfelder G, Friedrich K, Paul M, Chahoud I (2004) Developmental effects of

prenatal exposure to bisphenol A on the uterus of rat offspring. Neoplasia 6,
584-594.

Zafeiraki E, D Costopoulou D, Vassiliadou I, Bakeas E, Leondiadis L (2014)

Determination of perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) in various foodstuff
packaging materials used in the Greek market. Chemosphere 94, 169-176.

10